Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday September 09 2019, @11:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the hello-Eliza dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow2718

Are psychiatrists really ready for the AI revolution?

The World Health Organization estimates that up to 15% of the population experiences mental health disorders. That has significant consequences. For example, suicide is the second- or third-leading cause of death for young people in most countries. And as the population ages, the rate of dementia is set to triple over the coming decades.

At the same time, access to mental health professionals is sorely lacking in many parts of the world, particularly in low-income countries. India, for example, has a population of 1.3 billion served by only 9,000 psychiatrists.

But technological advances can help. Smartphones and wearable sensors offer people the ability to monitor themselves and to benefit from the way deep learning can analyze the data. Indeed, these techniques are already being used to detect the changes in mood that indicate bipolar disorder or to detect people at risk of depression.  

So the scene is set for artificial intelligence to become a disruptive force in psychiatry. Indeed, that's exactly what many observers predict.

But what of psychiatrists themselves? These professionals will have to play a key role in any change that artificial intelligence brings to the field. So their view ought to be a useful indicator of its potential.

Enter Murali Doraiswamy at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, and couple of colleagues. This team has surveyed psychiatrists around the world to find out how they view machine intelligence and its likely impact on mental health care.

"To our knowledge, this is the first global survey to seek the opinions of physicians on the impact of autonomous artificial intelligence/machine learning on the future of psychiatry," say the team. Curiously, the results appear to say more about psychiatrists than about the state of technological readiness or its potential.

The team's method was straightforward. The researchers randomly chose a sample of 750 professional psychiatrists registered with an online database of over 800,000 health-care professionals around the world, including 22 countries in North and South America, Europe, and Asia; 30% were women and two-thirds were white.

The respondents clearly felt that machines could never learn some skills. "An overwhelming majority (83 per cent) of respondents felt it unlikely that future technology would ever be able to provide empathic care as well as or better than the average psychiatrist," say Doraiswamy and colleagues. Interestingly, a survey of family physicians in the UK showed they had a similar view.

The group was also divided on the risks that artificial intelligence might pose.  "Only 23 per cent of women predicted that the benefits of AI would outweigh the possible risks compared to 41 per cent  of men," say Doraiswamy and colleagues.

But they think they know why. "The gender differences in AI risk perception may be commensurate with a large body of findings that women are more risk averse than men," they say.

The most interesting results are in the way respondents feel machine intelligence will change their jobs. Three-quarters of them thought that artificial intelligence will play an important role in managing data, such as medical records. And about half thought it would fully replace human physicians when it comes to synthesizing information to reach diagnoses.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1907.12386 : Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Psychiatry: Insights from a Global Physician Survey


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday September 10 2019, @02:09AM (1 child)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Tuesday September 10 2019, @02:09AM (#892007) Journal

    Well, since everyone is screwed up in some way, I would expect that would also include shrinks.

    Not to defend current practice, which is majorly fucked up, centered around medicalizing normal states of mind. Lost your job? Here, have a pill instead of job counseling. You'll still be unemployed, and we'll have to keep increasing the dose or changing meds since we haven't fixed the lack of a job and the side effects are going to keep you from successfully working anyway, but hey, if you don't feel better it's your brain's fault, not our fucked up "solution in a pill."

    You have a problem, they prescribe pills, you now have three (or more) problems - the original problem, which is not addressed, medication, and side effects.

    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 10 2019, @12:51PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday September 10 2019, @12:51PM (#892185)

    But the pill sellers/makers/investors benefit, so they continue to push for more use of the pills, and the legal and medical systems have proven happy to oblige.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]